Title

Authors

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Brooklyn Law Review

Publication Date

2011

Abstract

The article questions the persistent argument of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia that statutory language should be enough for courts to determine the outcome of a case. It points out how statutory language is often unclear by exploring personal experiences of selected judges in U.S. appellate court cases such as Holy Trinity Church v. United States and United States v. Marshall. It explains how probative legislative history had been used in interpreting unclear statutes.